Were German weapons of WWII superior to U.S. weapons?

[Satch]

Were German weapons

The Germans had many weapons that out paced the allies, but the Germans methode of disapline of its troops made them almost imposible to think for themselves when their officers were killed or wounded and could no longer lead,and they had the habit of surrendering almost out right when an Allied unit would get behind them. In other words they were very effective in frontal attacks with their good weapons,but flank attacks by our troops was their down fall through out the war in Europe. My brother talked to a few German Pows and said they were always amazed that we would out flank them so much,and that really caused them many battles lost. The Germans thought our troops would surrender at Bastogne being surrounded,but of course Bastogne ruined their plans.

 

[PeteRR]

The Germans had many weapons that out paced the allies, but the Germans methode of disapline of its troops made them almost imposible to think for themselves when their officers were killed or wounded and could no longer lead,and they had the habit of surrendering almost out right when an Allied unit would get behind them. In other words they were very effective in frontal attacks with their good weapons,but flank attacks by our troops was their down fall through out the war in Europe. My brother talked to a few German Pows and said they were always amazed that we would out flank them so much,and that really caused them many battles lost. The Germans thought our troops would surrender at Bastogne being surrounded,but of course Bastogne ruined their plans.

What are you basing this on, Sgt Rock comic books? At the squad level, where no officers are present, the Germans outfought every other nationality in WWII. Read any of the historians who've written on the subject. German NCOs were the best trained and most independent of the major forces. The Germans were outnumbered in every theatre and country they operated in. On the E. Front, they got surrounded all the time. And as for attacking straight ahead, who do you think pioneered Blitzkrieg, which calls for penetrating the enemies front line and fighting behind their lines for extensive periods of time with no flanks?

 

[dfaugh]

IMHO,

Most of the infantry issued arms had little to do with the allied victory. One exception to this was the M-1 Garand which was superior to the (then) dated bolt action Mauser (which was still a "good" gun, but no match for the Garand). Most other small arms had little or no DECISIVE roles. (How many battles were won because we had 1911s?)

Some things that DID make a difference:

Allies had more EFFECTIVE artillary (though arguably not necessarily better).

German started out with superior armor, but we caught up to some extent, and theirs had some problems (reliability), and eventually we had WAY more.

Naval strength. The Germans started out ahead of the game, but we caught up. We never did completely neutralize their U-boats, although we did make them much leas effective. They were used brilliantly, and had an impact far beyond their numbers.

Air superiority. Again the Germans started out ahead, but we caught up pretty fast, and could produce a much greater volume. Remember the footage of masses of B-17 formations flying across to rain bombs into the heart of Germany. We took our licks for it, but the devastation they caused was tremendous. And they never really produced a heavy bomber to compare with the B-17 or the Lancaster.) And eventually, we simply "overproduced" them with aircraft, that were as good or better than what they had. The ME-262s were awesome, but Hitler wanted to use them as a light bomber, instead of a fighter, so they had less impact than they could've. They also were "too little-too late", to do too much to change the dynamics of the air war.

BUT, the very biggest mistake Hitler made was attacking Russia. It took FAR too many resources away from other fronts, and contrary to what he expected of the Russians, they eventually severely devasted his resources. His supply lines were way too long to effectively fight, and they were ill-equipped for the battles they encountered. And eventually the Russians overwhelmed them with armor, artillary, etc. that was as least as good as the Germans. Had Hitler not attacked Russia (or had he waited until he had totally conslidated his position in Europe, the outcome of WWII would have been quite different. (I think the Allies would have won, but at much greater cost, and a much longer war. That is, if we never used the "nuclear solution" as we did in the Pacific. (But remember Hitler/Germany was only a step behind in developing nuclear weapons.)

 

[Joe Demko]

It wasn't a mistake to attack Russia. It was what he planned all along. It's right there in Mein Kampf. Once the attack on Russia was underway, if Hitler had been able to resist his urge to micromanage, German victory might still have been achieved.
After decades of gloating Allied propaganda and war movies, it's easy to forget that when Germany invaded Russia, they had little to worry about in the West.
Great Britain was unable, on their own, to mount any kid of serious invasion of Europe. There was a lot of very strong sentiment in the US for staying out of another European war. The US wouldn't even convoy shipments to Great Britain at the time. FDR had to do an awful lot of wily politicking to get things like Lend-lease to be a reality.

 

[Keith Wheeler]

The MG42 is an amazing firearm, but not without a number of issues. While the M60 was inspired by the '42, it is not a "copy". Vastly different firearms. The M60 uses the belt-feed mechanism of the MG42, but not the operating mechanism. The M60 is gas-operated with a fixed barrel and rotating bolt, the MG42 is recoil-operated with a floating barrel and roller locked bolt.

The MG42's biggest issue is out of battery ignition. A "kaboom" in the flimsy sheet metal '42 can ruin your day. The Yugo M53, which not only were direct copies of the '42 but also used many WWII German parts, were primarily distrusted by their operators in the Balkan conflicts of recent history. The RPK was valued over the M53 as the latter was (according to operators) prone to jamming.

Yes, the MG42 lives on today as the M3 in use by Austria (not sure about Germany). In addition to the M60, there is a much closer descendant used in Spain, I forget the nomenclature but it is essentially a down-sized MG42 firing 5.56mm.

 

[ArmedBear]

Please note that I am not saying the U.S. didn't have fantastic firearms during the same period. But they are all LONG since retired.

Well, the Garand's magazine system wasn't the best -- Austria's rifle that Garand copied wasn't either; I own one. The mistake was rectified after the war.

The resulting revised firearm with a detachable mag and shortened brass is in use, as we speak, in Iraq.

So the Garand lives on in combat, with some tweaks.

 

[CornCod]

I think both armies had good weapons during the war. A good point was made about the differences between US and German tactical doctrine. The Americans used machine-guns to support the riflemen and the Germans used riflemen to support the machine-gunner. The Garand was superior to the Mauser. The MG-42 was superior in many ways to the M1917 and M-1918, but both American weapons were reliable. The BAR was a little outdated and probably inferior to the Bren, but since the American machine-guns were so heavy, an intermediate weapon midway in concept between a Light machine-gun/ Squad automatic and a normal semi-auto rifle of the time filled a good tactical niche.

Think about the poor Japanese and Italians and their perfectly awful machine-guns, both light and medium. I think their troops would have been much happier with either German or American weapons.

Of course, its not always the gun but the man behind it. The Soviets had half their troops carrying sub-guns with the funny bottle-necked 7.62X25mm and they, essentially won the war. I am sure the very idea of this gave the late Col. Cooper (God rest his soul) heartburn.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Quote by oneshooter: "The Germans had a chance to use the Polish BAR, and found that they did not like it. HOWEVER, they did know a superior weapon when they found it!"

How true. Ironically, at least some Bundeswehr units are currently using product improved versions of the M2HB ("Ma Duece). These have fixed headspace and timing which eliminates the necessity for timing and headspace gauges. I believe they purchased the originals from FN Herstal.

In 2000, my unit gave classes to some German KSK (German Special Forces) on their brand-new, just issued, M2HB .50s (preparatory to 1st range fire). Those guns ran like champs and without all that annoying turn-the-barrel and go-no-go drama.

The Big Browning continues to be a crowd pleaser. The Wermacht of WWII tended to go with auto-cannon in the same role.

 

[gunny1022]

IF Hitler had not so stupid to invade Russia, help the Italians in North Africa, we would all be speaking German today. The had the ballistic missle, close to the atomic bomb, the best generals on the planet. Hitler could have taken England out of the war at Dunkirk in three days and captured 200,000 troops. He admired the British because of their Germanic language and heritage. England would have had no chance---America was at least three years away from becoming a foe, and Germany would have had the atomic bomb by then. The German generals should have killed the SOB just after Dunkirk.

 

[ArmedBear]

gunny1022-

I don't think so.

We didn't fight (much) on the mainland US. What would likely have happened would have been that the US mainland would have become as war-torn as Europe.

Who "won" at that point would be another question.

 

[RNB65]

Gunny, I agree with everything you say except for the atomic bomb part. Germany was no where near developing an atomic bomb. Nazi physicists knew how to build an atomic bomb in theory and had workable bomb designs on paper, but they also knew that Germany lacked the industrial capacity to produce the enriched uranium needed to build a working bomb. They knew the war would be long over before Germany had a working bomb so most of their atomic research was geared towards developing nuclear fission as a power source and not a bomb.

 

[SDC]

In addition to the M60, there is a much closer descendant used in Spain, I forget the nomenclature but it is essentially a down-sized MG42 firing 5.56mm.

That would be the CETME Ameli.

 

[scout26]

It was intelligence that won the war: ULTRA/ENIGMA in Europe and in the Pacific; PURPLE, et al.

When you can read the other guys' mail/mind and know what he's going to do before he does it, unless you're a complete idiot, you'll win everytime.

We had some stuff that was better then theirs (M1 Garand), they had some good stuff that was better then ours (MG42). Some of our doctrine was better then theirs (Fire and close air support) and some of theirs was better then ours (combined arms tactics).

I've read that the average German soldier was "worth" - 11 Russians, or 5 Brits or 3 Americans. They much better training at the individual and small unit level. Their whole unit replacement system was far superior to our individual replacement system.

But it still comes done to having the right people trained with the right stuff in the right place at the right time. That's why the Normandy Invasion worked and the Battle of Bulge didn't (at least for the Allies).

 

[SniperStraz]

bthest86: You're right that the 1911 is a superior pistol, but wars arn't won with handguns.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

In the end ----it wasn't the individual weapons----but superior manufacturing and logistics capabilities that won the war.

 

[John-Melb]

With the exception of the M1 Rifle, German weapons were as good as anything the allies fielded, the M1 wins on account of it's semi-auto fire.

Two things beat the Germans numbers and tactics.

The Panzer 4 was more than a match for a Sherman, or a T34, but not much good against 5 Shermans or 8 T34's.

The K98 was a match for the No4 Rifle, but not real good pitting one K98 against three or four No4's.

If the Germans had taken the Suez early in the war, they would have had access to oil fields and the natural resources of the Asia-Pacific area, things like rubber for truck tyres. With access to those natural resources, the German war machine would have been virtually unstoppable.

The couldn't take Suez because their supplies lines were too long, everything carried by the Germans in North Africa had to come in through Tunisia, and then be trucked across North Africa to where it was needed. There was a deep water port much closer to the German and Italian front lines, but it wasn't available for their use.

It was Tobruk.

 

[MechAg94]

From what I have read, the Germans were not real well prepared for WWII. They did not have enough armor and weapons and supplies for a protracted war. I have read that most of the tanks sent in to battle against France were older types with weak guns. They spread the newer tanks among the units to provide additional firepower where needed. Hitler was impatient.

You can also see the quotes from Rommel. He was constantly short of supplies and replacements during the entire African campaign. By the end of the African campaign his troops had very little food and fuel so they couldn't maneuver. When Rommel heard about the attack on Russia, he lamented that if had only a fraction of the troops and supplies, he could take all of Africa. I also saw a while back that the older US tank w/o a turret had some success in Africa.

There was also the problem of Arrogance. The Nazi's were so confident in their mechanical know how they never got wise to the fact that the British were listening in on their communications. They did not secure their communications very well beyond that code machine. The skilled British counterintelligence didn't help either. The British were intercepting a big portion of the supplies sent to Africa and actually had to make sure they didn't attack some or give away the fact that they were listening.

IMHO, the Germans should have attacked the West or the East, not both. Focusing on the Soviets only might have allowed them to win. Hell, they might have stolen the T-34 design and made even better tanks.

 

[MechAg94]

I remember something I read in Patton's book. He described a great deal of fortifications they overran that were large and well built but taken by squads in a relatively short time. He mentioned that if they spent all that time training rather than building, they would have been a harder army to push back. I'm sure there reasons for it, but it was an interesting point. Might have been busy work for foreign conscripts.

Then there was the Holocaust. Just when the German troops were beginning to face the Russian Winter, supply trains were being diverted to build extermination camps instead of sending war supplies to the front. Not to mention the fact that the anti-jewish stuff eliminated a number of potential officers and soldiers that might have served in the army.

 

[RNB65]

There was also the problem of Arrogance. The Nazi's were so confident in their mechanical know how they never got wise to the fact that the British were listening in on their communications.

Oh, how true! Actually, German intelligence strongly believed that the British had broken the Enigma code. But their mathmaticians and cryptographers convinced the military leaders that the Enigma cypher was mathmatically unbreakable and totally secure. So they continued right on using it. Little did they know that Alan Turing and his band of gifted eccentrics were sitting at Bletchley Park merrily decoding their messages day after day.

That was THE greatest secret of WWII!

 

[antsi]

-----------quote-------------
When you can read the other guys' mail/mind and know what he's going to do before he does it, unless you're a complete idiot, you'll win everytime.
------------------------------

You should read John Keegan's Intelligence in War.

There were a few instances of WWII where the Enigma decrypts made a big difference on the battlefield. The battle against the U-Boats is an example. Despite generally understanding Enigma, Bletchley was only able to rapidly decrypt U-boat codes and translate these into usable operational intelligence intermittently. When they had their intelligence act together, they were able to re-route the convoys away from the U-boats and decrease sinkings dramatically. But then the Germans would change their code settings or their map or the Enigma machine itself, and Bletchley would be stumped for a few months, and the U-boats would be more successful for a while. This kind of on-again off-again performance is one of the ones Keegan cites as a big success of code-breakers.

There were plenty more examples where despite good intelligence did little to no good on the battlefield. In the battle for Crete, the allied commanders knew all kinds of details about the planned German invasion. They knew the exact forces, the date of the air drops, the drop zones, orders for individual units; you name it. Still the Germans won the battle because the Brits weren't abe to translate their knowledge into effective action. Another example is Barbarossa - Stalin had been told by everyone and their brother that the Germans were coming, but still the Russian commanders in the field were told not to prepare for an invasion.

It is a very good book and well worth reading. He also covers intelligence in Napoleonic times, WWI naval battles, and many other examples. His general conclusion is that intelligence can give one side an advantage in war, but it is not the decisive factor in who wins.

 

[jad0110]

The MG42's biggest issue is out of battery ignition. A "kaboom" in the flimsy sheet metal '42 can ruin your day.

For that reason, it can be argued that the slower firing, but more durable/reliable MG34 was the superior of the two. Heck, plenty of German pilots preferred the older BF-109 to the newer FW-190.

Someone else mentioned it earlier, but most people don't realize that the M4 Sherman could quite readily knock the snot our of the Panzer Is and IIs. It could hold its own against the IIIs and even the IVs. It was the Tigers and especially the Panthers that gave it so much grief. But even then the Sherman was but a small part of the entire effort. A Panther may be more than a match for a Sherman, but not a P-38 Lightening bouncing 50 cal and 20 mm shells up under its thinly skinned back side.

Though it must also be noted that the U.S. Army succeeded against the German Army in spite of its horrible, archaic replacement policy. Though this was offset by other factors, not the least of which was clearly superior logistics. You can have the biggest, best trained army in the world but it doesn't mean squat if they don't eat and are out of supplies!

A little off subject, but it's been mentioned previously: As for the Japanese, their early Type 99 Arisaka rifles were pretty good. Later in the war the quality began to suffer. They probably produced the most exceptionally horrendous sidearm of WWII (or any war) in the Type 94. The exposed sear projected from the left side of the receiver, and the gun could be fired simply by squeezing it at this point . Might have been funny except a lot of poor GIs and Marines picked them up as souveniers not knowing the dangers they posed.

But two areas where they held an advantage were:

A6M Zero, or "Zeke" - Clearly outclassed the American F2A Brewster Buffalo, and did hold a measurable edge over the P40 and F4F Wildcat. But proper tactics meant the obsolete P40s and F4Fs could hold their own. Later U.S. aircraft like the F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair, P38 Lightening, and P-51 Mustang turned the tables against the Zero.

Type 93 Long lance torpedo - probably the nastiest weapon in Japan's arsenal, far superior to anything else in the world. Caused British and American sailor a lot of grief.

 

[Beatnik]

Well, in response to the main topic of which is "better":
Upstairs I have both a 1911 and a P38. What follows is based on personal experience.

1911: well, I doubt I need to say anything about what it's like.

P38: The first thing is that AFAIK this was the first DA semi auto pistol to be adopted as a standard issue sidearm. There's something to be said for that, I think. It also has a loaded chamber indicator and a decocker - all in all, it's much more modern.

Fit and finish on the P38 is IMO superior to most 1911's I've seen. However, it falls right in line with stereotypical German technology - too damned complicated. I was able to figure out how field strip the 1911, even though it's not intuitive - but the P38 had me looking online. There are also little things that don't need to be there, like the fact that it has two recoil springs.

(I write software at a company with a German guy as the head of development, and it's hard sometimes not to point at something he wrote and say "THIS IS WHY WE WON"...)

The P38 also has an 8 round magazine of 9 parabellum. The Hi-Power was already around at that time, so in my mind there would be little excuse for intentionally designing an arm that doesn't have a double stacked mag - especially in a situation where you have so many people over 2 meters tall (who have proportionally sized hands and therefore wouldn't complain about it).

The P38 has a larger ejection port than the 1911 and it's situated on top. It seems to me like it would foul a lot more easily when exposed to battlefield conditions, but I wouldn't know for sure. That's based on the observation that there are more moving parts and that more of them get exposed when it cycles.

From what little I know about machining, the 1911 isn't exactly a cakewalk to make, but one thing that sticks out in my mind is the barrel on both of them. The 1911 barrel is only a moderately goofy shape. I can't figure out how the P38 barrel would be made at all without computer controlled machining. I can't really explain it except to say that if you ever get a chance to see one, take a look - you'll be surprised at how weird the barrel and slide are and how everything fits together.

As far as firing them, I'd have to go with the P38. As far as I've experienced, it seems like the 1911 can be made (after the fact) into a very nice shooting pistol through varying amounts of gunsmithing - but the P38 is a very nice shooter to begin with.

All in all, if I had to pick one of the two to have around as an everyday shooter, I'd go with the P38. If I was skulking around French hedgerows surrounded by people trying to kill me, there's no way I'd pass up the 1911. If that makes it superior, then the 1911 wins.

 

[amprecon]

I killed my first and only bear with a MK98 Mauser, it was a good solid rifle. It didn't stand out as anything exceptional though. It was just what it was, a rough and tumble bolt action rifle.
I own an M1 Garand (my second one) and know it pretty well. Looking at the receiver I am amazed at all the angles, grooves and intricate machining that went into fabricating it and thought that we, the USA, spent alot of extra time and effort creating this rifle. I thought that it must have cost much more to produce than the '03-A3.
It just takes me back to a time when the rifle not only had to function reliably consistently, but that it was made aesthetically pleasing to the eye. It wasn't just chopped out of a block of steel with the unnecessary metal left on it, it was trimmed off at the right places which left it looking professional in the end.
Even the Tommy Gun looks good, remove all the wood and the barrel from the receiver and it doesn't look like much, but when all put together it produces an unforgettable silhouette.
To me it seemed that we went the extra mile and took the extra effort to produce handsome and effective firearms built to last lifetimes which speaks mountains about our national pride and prestige of the time.

 

[thexrayboy]

The Germans made excellent weapons during WWII, many were quite innovative. However the Germans fell into the rut of always trying to build a better mousetrap that would magically win the war for them. If they had been able to build what they had in the vast quantities that the US did the ending may have been different. One of the reasons that industrial output from the Axis powers wasn't able to keep pace with ours was the simple fact that our factories went the whole war unscathed whereas we bombed the bejesus out of theirs thus decreasing their warmaking abilities. This was a key strategy in WWII. No matter how good a weapon you design it's of little use if you can't make it and field it.

As for the idea that the Germans could have won the war had Hitler kept his fingers out of the cookie jar there is some merit to that. But the chances are that if he had the patience to let his generals do the fighting instead of running the show himself he would likely have waited a year or two to start the war. If the Germans had waited till 1941 or so to start the war they may have been able to come up with a nuclear device, then again maybe not. We know they had the technical skills and did work on it. However we can never know if they would have succeeded with enough time. If they had however the whole course of the war and history would likely be radically different.

 

[Colt46]

A huge topic

I'll keep it short.
98k was inferior to the Enfield and Garand.
The STG-44 was a groundbreaking design, but lack of production and excess weight limited it's effectiveness.
The P-38 and Radom were fine designs. Maybe even better than the 1911, but .45 takes precedence over 9mm in any gunfight.
The BAR was great, but an Automatic Rifle as a primary squad weapon was an odd choice. Not really a machine gun is it?
German Machine gun developement was better than ours. Big exception is the Browning M-2. The British Vickers, water cooled, design rarely gets the praise it deserves.
The Thompson M1A1 is superior to most SMG's during the conflict but was too damned expensive to produce. The M-3 grease was a decent, if not, unispirational design. The MP-40 was good, but not all that tolerant of adverse conditions. The Russian PPSh series was pretty damned good. The Sten was crude.

German tanks were superior to ours in the Anti-tank role. Ours were designed to support infantry in a combined arms type role. Our tank destroyer doctrine was flawed and didn't prove to be a raging success. One aspect that rarely gets mentioned is our recovery and repair of damaged or destroyed armored vehicles. We had teams that could recover and refurbish tanks that other nations would completely write off as destroyed. I read an account by the commander of one of these units that had about a 50% chance of returning an AFV destroyed by enemy fire.

Nobody's mentioned the Proximity Fuze. Light years ahead of what everybody else was using. Our artillery was superior. Guns maybe not. Doctrine, supply and sophistication we were all over everybody.

The german navy was pretty much a joke. Their major surface units were too valuable to commit to actually doing anything and became uhuge magnets for the Royal Navy whenever they left port. Some of their designs and doctine were pretty good. Too few to make a difference though. The U-boat service did some fine work, but couldn't keep up with allied advances in tech and ended up being hunted down like dogs after the Autumn of '43. Their new XXI boats were never close to operational status and their XXIII boats were coastal defence only and had limited range and torpedos.